Standing Committee G

[Mr. James Cran in the Chair]

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Clause 1 - Closure notice

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 13, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 27, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Hawkins.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

James Cran: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 14, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (9). 
Amendment No. 129, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 36, at end insert— 
 '(12) This section does not apply to premises operated by agencies working to aid and rehabilitate drug users and the homeless.'.
 Amendment No. 130, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(d) alternative accommodation is available to any resident of the premises who is not involved in the activities described in paragraphs (a) and (b).'.
 Amendment No. 24, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 25, leave out subsection (9).

Annette Brooke: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cran. I do not think that I have met you before, so it is a double pleasure.
 I have already made the case and I do not want to repeat it.

Shona McIsaac: Hear, hear.

Annette Brooke: I think that that comment is a little unjust, as I do not use quite as many words as some members of this Committee.
 In summary, amendment No. 129 has been included to allay the concerns of people who work with charities that help drug addicts and homeless people. Such organisations argue convincingly that, unless the amendments are accepted, the manager or owner of premises used for homeless people or drug rehabilitation could be more severely punished for allowing drugs to be used on the premises than the person using the drugs. As I said earlier, we must take an holistic approach, and it is important to ensure that people working in the agencies and on the various initiatives are on board. 
 Amendment No. 130 would ensure that innocent and vulnerable people who may lose their homes because they have become caught up in the situation but are not guilty per se have some protection and are not left homeless on the streets. 
 We feel strongly about amendments Nos. 129 and 130. They are not just probing amendments.

James Paice: I also welcome your presence in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Cran. I did not intend to speak to this group of amendments, because my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) put the case admirably for those that we tabled. However, I want to pick up on the amendment to which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) has just spoken, particularly because of the point made by my hon. Friend in his opening comments this morning. He referred to the problems in Cambridge, where two managers were imprisoned for allowing drug dealing on the premises. One of those managers was a constituent of mine, so I was closely involved and have some insight into the issues.
 In amendment No. 129, the Liberal Democrats propose that the clause should 
''not apply to premises operated by agencies working to aid and rehabilitate drug users and the homeless.''
 The work of such agencies is to be welcomed and supported, and the charity concerned, Winter Comfort in Cambridge, does admirable work. I do not want to go over the events leading up to the court cases, for obvious reasons, but I come to the issue with that experience and I do not support the amendment, but not for any partisan reason. 
 That case caused a huge furore throughout the voluntary organisations that help people who are using drugs, but it is essential for the law to have the power to deal with a situation if it gets completely out of hand. I am not saying that that was so in the case to which I referred, and I do not want to comment on it in detail, but I know that it caused a lot of heart-searching throughout the voluntary sector that deals with those vulnerable people. In many ways, one's sympathy is with them and the need to provide the managers of such facilities with as much support as possible. I genuinely believe that. However, at the end of the day we must accept that, in some circumstances, those facilities can become a focus for local disorder, disruption and antisocial behaviour that affects people in the neighbourhood. It would therefore be wrong to exempt such facilities totally. 
 It is important that the police, social services and all the other public bodies that work closely with those running such premises—which may be an agency or a hostel—are sensitive to the local situation and the problems of these often vulnerable people. However, it would be wrong—I say this with huge respect for the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and her presentation of the amendment—to provide the blanket exemption from this aspect of the Bill that she advocates. I hope that anyone would treat such a situation sensitively. If there were evidence that a location was providing a focus for disorder, causing antisocial behaviour in the locality or distress to others who live or work in the vicinity of the premises, action would need to be taken. The Cambridge case shows that people can take action. As I said, it would be wrong to provide a blanket exemption. 
 Obviously, I do not know what the Minister will say, but I should prefer a ministerial exhortation that, in such a situation, the premises would be treated with great sensitivity, and that one would not seek to end such provision other than in extremis. However, to suggest that such premises should never be closed, which would be the consequence of the Liberal Democrat amendment, would be wrong. Again, I say that with the experience of having had to deal with a difficult situation that was not located in my constituency, but adjacent to it. One of the two people imprisoned as a result was a constituent of mine. Although that might lead me to have sympathy for the amendment—there is sympathy for the cause—it would not be right to go as far as it proposes.

Bob Ainsworth: Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Cran. We are, in effect, dealing with two sets of amendments that are designed to do different things. I think that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath anticipated what I was going to say. Amendments Nos. 13 and 24 reduce the clarity of the power. In tackling drug dealing, there is always the problem of obtaining enough evidence to prosecute individuals for their part in selling drugs. That is particularly difficult when the selling goes on behind closed doors. The proposed powers will ensure that, when nuisance to the community is evident, even if no prosecution can be brought against an individual, action can be taken to control the behaviour occurring within the property and to ensure that the dealing stops.
 The use of the power to close premises may or may not be connected to criminal proceedings. That is an operational matter for the police. It is best left to them to decide the most appropriate course of action. By stating that there need be no connection between criminal and civil action, we seek to remove a potential hindrance to the use of the powers and give clarity to the court that it can use the powers even without criminal charges against the individual involved in supply. That clarity is important, as we are talking about the same offences: the production, use or sale of class A drugs, which are criminal offences. 
 We should not pass legislation that could leave people without the necessary clarity—it could give the impression that action should be taken only in cases of criminal activity. It is for the police to decide when the powers should be used in conjunction with a criminal prosecution, and if they believe that that is not possible, they should get on and use the powers that we are giving them in order to prevent the nuisance that is inflicted on the community.

Nick Hawkins: I have been listening very carefully to what the Minister has been saying to justify the use of the word ''immaterial''. I understand his argument, but will he just answer me this? If the provisions challenged by our amendments did not appear at all, would not the legislation have exactly the same effect? If something is immaterial, and it is not in the legislation at all, surely that silence would be regarded as meaning that the police had the
 powers that they needed to close down crack houses, whether or not anybody had been involved in the criminal courts.

Bob Ainsworth: I believe so. Unlike me, the hon. Gentleman has a legal qualification, so he is probably best able to judge. However, for the price of a bit of ink and a bit more paper, we are putting things beyond doubt. The issue is very serious, as he quite rightly recognises, so it is worth clarifying for the courts that the powers do not need to be used in conjunction with a criminal prosecution. Of course, if it is appropriate that is exactly what the police ought to do. They ought to keep at the forefront of their minds the prosecution of people who involve themselves in the drugs trade and other such behaviour. The hon. Gentleman anticipated that the wording was for the sake of clarity, but was worried that it might be for something else. I am simply trying to confirm that there is no ulterior motive in the wording. The wording makes it absolutely clear what the issue is.
 Amendment No. 129 serves to create a blanket exemption for premises operated by agencies working to aid and rehabilitate drug users and the homeless. I understand the intention of the amendment, and the Government place considerable value on the work that so many people do in the rehabilitation and homelessness fields to assist drug abusers and drug addicts. We intend closure notices and orders to be used against premises such as crack houses, as I have said in response to previous debates in Committee. Such places cause the most serious nuisance and distress to the community. The powers are not designed to be used against premises or agencies working with drug users and assisting in combating drug problems in this country. 
 I do not deny that the problem is potentially serious for the reasons raised by the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. We must try to do two things. If we are to tackle the drugs problem to the necessary degree, we have to ensure that treatment and harm minimisation are developed and are properly tailored and aimed at the people who have the problems. Such people are often homeless, beggars on the street, or other people who have serious problems, sometimes as a result of their drug misuse and sometimes in conjunction with it. 
 We want to encourage people into the field and to expand it, but at the same time we must make absolutely certain that people are not abusing the situation and that their abuse is covered by the law, if and when it occurs. Having a blanket exemption, as the amendment suggests, would be a retrograde step and we could not support it. Such an exemption would leave the law open to exploitation by unscrupulous people who claim to provide services of the type in question, or by individuals working in such agencies who choose to act outside of the law—the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will know that there are many different views on drugs law stretching from every extreme and relating to every dimension. The law needs to be able to cover such circumstances where appropriate. 
 We have already considered the issue and believe that the Secretary of State's ability to grant exemptions to premises or types of premises, which amendment No. 14 would remove, provides the appropriate protection for workers and premises in this field. If we found that those powers were being used inappropriately we could take the necessary action to clarify when and how they should be used. I understand Parliament's concerns about delegated powers, but I would far rather leave us with the ability to act if these powers are used in a way that we have not envisaged than put a blanket ban on their use in particular areas, as proposed by Liberal Democrat Members, which could be quite dangerous. 
 We believe that the ability to exempt certain premises from the power in the clause is a necessary reserve power. There is a need to ensure balance in relation to powers to close any setting where class A drugs may be sold or used. An unwanted consequence would be if facilities for drug users were not provided through fear of the legal consequences. The power to make exemptions allows the Secretary of State flexibility in defining those premises where it is not appropriate for the power to be used. In certain cases, the closure of a premises could lead to greater harm to the community. Those cases can often be dealt with by using other, less harmful means. 
 Amendment No. 14 would leave no possibility of preventing the use of that power on premises where it would be against the public good. I do not suggest that that will happen because the police are aware of the need to develop treatment and harm minimisation facilities to deal with the homeless. They are alert to the consequences of inappropriately affecting such facilities or deterring their development. However, there is a fear about that and the reserve power should cover it.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister and I are both trying to address these issues seriously. I am grateful for the way that he is responding. These are perhaps matters of degree. The Minister will realise that our main concern was that this was approaching a Henry VIII power and that the Bill would not tell us what the Secretary of State may decide to do by regulation. As he knows, we have frequently objected to the use of such powers. We think that it would be much better if these matters were all in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will understand that while we are not having a pitched battle about this, there are questions of judgment here. It is a judgment call and we come down on the other side.

Bob Ainsworth: I understand those concerns and I have heard them from the hon. Gentleman in other circumstances. If I were on the Opposition Bench now I would make exactly the same point. He knows, as I know, the sensitive area that we are involved in here. The case in an area adjacent to the constituency of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was mentioned. Irrespective of what happened in that individual case, it did great damage to the confidence of many people who were doing an appropriate job that we wanted them to do. Drawing the line in the right place is difficult. To set out in the Bill that the
 power will be used in certain circumstances and not in others leads to problems. One can give complete comfort by simply exempting the homeless, yet one suffers the consequences if someone abuses that exemption.

Annette Brooke: I should like to explain my concerns. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the Minister and I take the point about the blanket ban. There is an area not far away from the constituency that I represent with several drug rehabilitation centres. The situation has reached a point where the local population, especially hotel owners—a mishmash of hotels is mainly used—are saying that they do not want any more centres. That is difficult, as we need them. They are highly unlikely to be free of disorder: there must be some disorder in creating order. The Bill, however, is handing a tool to a neighbourhood to get a charity closed down. It may be right for the neighbourhood for that charity to be closed down, but it may be wrong. Will the Minister look into the possibility of a middle way?

James Paice: A third way.

Annette Brooke: A third way. There is a danger that, by leaving the Bill as it is, we could provide people with a great weapon with which to terminate much good work.

James Cran: Order. I want to make it clear that from now on interventions should be short, crisp and to the point.

Bob Ainsworth: You seem to be much gentler in the Chair than you were in the Whips Office, Mr. Cran. [Laughter.] That is confirmed by the laughter from the Opposition, as they should know better than I do.
 I ask the hon. Lady to think about her claim that we are giving a power to people who will object to the facilities. We are not. We are giving the power to a police officer, who will consult a local authority on taking action that a local community is urging him to take. That is different. As I said, if such a pattern of use were attempted and approved by a court—nuisance would have to be caused and the public good would have to be considered—we would have the reserve power to deal with it if we believed that it was absolutely necessary. 
 With regard to the Henry VIII clause, I say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that we are giving the power only to reduce what Parliament is approving. The situation is not quite as bad as some of the circumstances that worry him. 
 Amendment No. 130 is unnecessary. Accepting it would clog up the process of granting closure orders, interfere with the way in which a local authority discharges its homelessness responsibilities, and place those removed from a crack house before other equally deserving cases. They could, for example, be placed ahead of priority cases such as persons aged 16 or 17 who are estranged from the home and not in care, or others returning from an institutionalised background such as members of the armed forces. 
 A central concern during the creation of these powers has been that provision should be quick and effective against the nuisance that is being caused on 
 premises but that adequate provision must be made for those who have not been involved in the use or supply of class A drugs. That concern is addressed by the requirement for details of where to obtain legal and housing advice to be contained in the closure notice. Anyone with a connection to the property will therefore know how and where to access advice and services if they need them. 
 The amendment would mean that action could not be taken unless those services had been provided. I do not think that children or spouses of people involved in drugs, however innocent, should be made a special case because they are associated with a crack house or with other premises associated with class A drugs where nuisance has been caused. 
 The hon. Lady is welcome to press the matter to the vote if she wants to but cases should be dealt with equally and on merit, and not given priority because of the circumstances in which the eviction arose. Decisions should be based on need, not on the background to the case. 
 In light of my remarks, I ask hon. Members to reconsider their amendments. I hope that they will not press them to the vote.

Nick Hawkins: I add my welcome to you, Mr. Cran.
 This has been a good debate, notwithstanding the fact that it was interrupted by the Adjournment of the sitting in the middle of the day. All of us, including the Minister, recognise that the issues are very difficult, and that there are judgments to be made. I should make it clear that if the Liberal Democrats were to press their amendments Nos. 129 and 130 to the vote, we would vote against them and with the Government. We agree with the Minister. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire talked about the Wintercomfort case. I was not sure whether the Minister was making a pun when he talked about giving comfort to the hon. Lady. Perhaps he was not. We believe that it is important to ensure that the police have powers in cases where, for example, an organisation starts out by purporting to offer treatment but tips over the scale into actively supplying drugs. Sadly, that has happened several times, although it was the Wintercomfort trial that caused all the publicity and had a knock-on effect on legitimate drug rehabilitation work elsewhere in the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said. Nevertheless, I have come across other cases that did not have as much publicity but where so-called drug rehabilitation or harm minimisation clinics were actually promoting drugs. 
 I draw the Committee's attention to the important work being done by Dr. Mary Brett, a senior science teacher at Dr. Challoner's grammar school in Amersham. Some members of the Committee may not have come across it before, although I know that the Minister has. Dr. Brett gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee's significant report into drugs policy a year or so ago. She continues to keep me, my hon. Friends and other hon. Members informed of 
 organisations that start by purporting to be legitimate drug advice clinics or drug advice charities but tip over into the promotion of drugs. That is important in relation to this part of the Bill. 
 I shall give the Committee some brief examples, but before I do so, it is important to note that Dr. Brett's concerns about some of the drug charities were endorsed in the Select Committee's report, as the Minister will recall. She has followed these issues for several years, and members of the Select Committee were as horrified by some of her examples as I was when I heard about them, even though the Select Committee is Government-dominated. It is not simply a question of the Opposition raising these concerns: a Labour-dominated Select Committee endorsed what was said. 
 In paragraphs 201, 202 and 204 of its report, the Select Committee said: 
''we believe that all drugs education material should be based on the premise that any drug use can be harmful and should be discouraged.
Our attention was drawn to two leaflets. The first was produced by DrugScope and entitled What and why?: Cannabis . . .
When we asked for further clarification of their philosophy, we were told that DrugScope 'as an organisation prides itself on providing balanced, accurate drug information to professionals and the public'.''
 In paragraph 207, the Select Committee concluded in bold type: 
''We acknowledge the need to provide realistic drugs education, but we believe that examples such as the Lifeline leaflet'',
 which was one of the leaflets that Dr. Brett produced for the Select Committee, 
''crossed the line between providing accurate information and encouraging young people to experiment with illegal drugs. We believe that publicly funded organisations involved in educating impressionable young people about drugs should take care not to stray across this line . . . We do not share the view that confronting young people with shocking images of the harm caused by some drug use is counter productive . . . We acknowledge the importance of educating all young people about the harmful effects of all drugs, legal and illegal. Nonetheless, we recommend that the Government conducts rigorous analysis of its drugs education and prevention work and only spends money on what works, focusing in particular on long term and problem drug use and the consequent harm.
 Since the Select Committee's report, Dr. Brett has found some more offending leaflets and has written about them to my hon. Friends and me—and perhaps to members of the Committee. They were produced by an organisation called the Drugs Posse, and they are probably even worse than the ones produced by Lifeline and Drugscope, which were criticised by the Select Committee. The Clued Up Posse and an organisation called Connexions sent out one such leaflet, and Dr. Brett asked her sixth formers, who are the target audience, to examine it. They concluded that it was patronising and useless and that it positively encouraged drug use. They also pointed out that the dark green used in the publicity material resembles a Rizla packet, which sends out a message about those organisations. I know that Hansard has a problem with things being held up, but as the Committee can see, the leaflet looks like a Rizla packet with ''cannabis'' written across it. 
 I know that the Minister takes those issues seriously, but in other Ministries there is a problem with the lack of joined-up government.

Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: I will of course give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
 We are discussing organisations that the Government must take seriously when they examine which organisations are helping drug addicts as opposed to promoting drug use. Dr. Brett has written to the Department of Health pointing out that its official publications seem to run counter to Home Office objectives. The Government have to make sure that their message is unified. Rather than taking up any more of the Committee's time, I shall draw these examples, which have only just come to me, to the Minister's attention. 
 When we consider the premises used by these organisations, we have to look out for their publicity material. The term ''harm minimisation'' is often used as code for legalisation and gives the wrong message. The organisations' premises may need to be closed down, which is the point that relates to the clause. This is the only part of the Bill in which I can address the publicity material produced by those organisations.

Caroline Flint: I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, but I wonder whether his point is relevant. I thought that we were dealing with a situation in which premises
''have been used in connection with the unlawful use or supply of a Class A controlled drug, and . . . that the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public.''
 That is the subject of the clause, and I agree with the Government that we should not exempt organisations if they are carrying out those sorts of activities. The hon. Gentleman's broadening of the Bill's scope does not help the argument.

James Cran: Order. Just so that everyone is clear about my view, I decide whether we are in order. The hon. Gentleman was stretching things a bit far, but even he realised that.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to you, Mr. Cran. I wanted to take a little time on the issue because this is the only part of the Bill in which I have an opportunity to put those important points on the record.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not want to take too long and incur the wrath of the Chairman because we are straying slightly wide of the amendment. There will always be differences of emphasis, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that people should not stray over the line. We agreed with the Home Affairs Committee that some people will find it difficult to deal with the language and methods used to encourage ''harm minimisation'', but if we are to give people credible, valuable information, rather than encouraging them to learn from their mates in the playground, we must use such language and methods.

Nick Hawkins: I know that such decisions need to be taken and that the Minister takes the issue seriously. I will not take up the Committee's time this afternoon
 with examples, but will the Minister examine whether the Department of Health and other organisations funded by taxpayers are undermining the Home Office's overall message? I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing that.
 We will oppose amendments Nos. 129 and 130, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, but we accept the Government's explanation of the so-called Henry VIII clause, and I will not press that matter. The question with regard to the word ''immaterial'' was a probing one, as I made clear. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 186, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 28, after 'use', insert ', production'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Cran: I am happy to have a short debate, but I underline the word ''short''.

Vernon Coaker: The clause, in common with many others in the Bill, gives the police important new powers, and it is therefore very welcome. It is important at this stage, however, for the Minister to reassure us that those powers will be used. Throughout the Bill extensive new powers are made available to the police, local authorities and others. Many people in my community would want to see those powers used, because they will enable crack houses and other such premises to be closed down, and communities will be able to reclaim for themselves the sense of safety and community that is often diminished by crack houses. I would like to place on record my hope that those powers will be used extensively in the not-too-distant future.

Caroline Flint: I have a quick point to make. During the debate, much mention has been made of vulnerable people, and of spouses, partners and children. It should be noted, for the record, that vulnerable women and children often find themselves in a situation in which their property is used by transient men who use them, abuse them and then move on. This is a tough measure, but the reality is that children are being brought up in such an atmosphere, and where there are indications that the offences mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b) are occurring, we must bite the bullet and do something about it; otherwise such situations repeat themselves. That happens in my constituency, and no doubt in those of other hon. Members present.

Dari Taylor: I, too, welcome the first part of the Bill. It is valuable, and my local police force also welcomes its provisions. The police and others in my constituency have, however, expressed two concerns, which I would like the Minister to address. They are concerned about the use of the phrase ''serious nuisance'' in subsection (1)(b), and they think that the expression used should be simply ''nuisance''. They believe that the use of the word ''serious'' is open to a variety of judgments, and that those judgments could cause confusion and slowness in the delivery of appropriate legal controls.

Nick Hawkins: I should place on record the fact that when I had a similar discussion with my local police they made exactly the same point. I hope that the Minister will therefore listen carefully to what police forces in different parts of the country are saying.

Dari Taylor: My second point refers to subsection (2)(b), and the use of the phrase ''reasonable steps''. Again, the consensus of opinion within my local authority and police force is that that use of language could be problematic. In my constituency there are streets owned by corporations and companies that are faceless and unknown. Having to take ''reasonable steps'' to find out who has control and who has responsibility for the premises could give the police a serious headache when they are attempting to do what we all want them to do—reduce antisocial behaviour in our constituencies. The Minister should examine those two phrases and understand how the police and local authorities feel about them.

Liz Blackman: Like many of my colleagues, I welcome the clause, but I want to know whether, once the Bill becomes law, the measure and its effectiveness will be carefully monitored. The difficult and challenging behaviour caused by crack houses is severe in many constituencies, including mine. It will be no good if, a year down the line, we find out that the police and their local partners are not using the clause as well as they could. Will the Minister keep a close eye on its effectiveness from day one, because it is potentially an excellent measure?

Bob Ainsworth: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) that the powers need to be used, and I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about the size of the nuisance and the fact that the powers are justified. The circumstances in which they may put people will be no worse than the circumstances in which they often place themselves.
 Two patterns of use arise in Coventry. The main area of difficulty is just outside my constituency, where families generally face one of two circumstances: in inner-city council flats, tenants are either paid to make themselves scarce or, because of the family circumstances, effectively captured with their family and held captive while the activity continues. Although the measures might seem draconian, they are necessary. We are rescuing people from a difficult situation, not a perfect situation. 
 We must be up-front about our monitoring.

James Cran: Order. I ask Mr. Ainsworth to face the microphone because otherwise it is very difficult for Hansard to hear.

Bob Ainsworth: I apologise, Mr. Cran.
 It is essential that all measures in the Bill are kept under review and monitored. When we revisit and seek to improve measures, it prompts great mirth among Opposition Members, who attempt to misrepresent that as our trying to rewrite past measures. Dealing with antisocial behaviour is difficult, and it must be the highest priority. If the measures do not work as we want them to or they are not as effective as we need them to be, we must keep them under review and be 
 prepared to go back to them and to improve and amend when necessary. 
 On the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), I should say that, as I said earlier, I am concerned that we do not set the threshold too high so that the measures are difficult to use. We plan to spell out in guidance the kind of nuisance that we are talking about to aid the courts in deciding when to allow the measures to be used. If we just referred to ''nuisance'' and left it at that, we could, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, leave the way open to a person who does not want a particular facility in their area saying that a nuisance is created by its existence. We need to be clear about that. 
 The kind of premises that worry my hon. Friend and the police in Stockton cause serious nuisance. We must get the guidance right and clearly tell the police that where people come in at all hours of the day and the night, where there is soliciting or where drug paraphernalia is left in the immediate premises, that amounts to serious nuisance. That will trigger the offence and give the police a quick and effective measure to deal with it.

Matthew Green: The Minister mentions guidance. Does he not agree, particularly considering the speed at which the Bill has been rushed forward without proper consultation, that some draft guidance would have been welcome? It could have dealt with many of the questions that are now being raised. Draft guidance has been issued to Standing Committees on other Bills to show the Government's intentions. Does the Minister agree that it would have been a good idea?

Bob Ainsworth: In an ideal world, yes, but one has to strike a balance between taking action and not taking action. The hon. Gentleman should not hide behind those devices—if he thinks that we have got it wrong, he should say so and vote against the measures. If he thinks that they are too draconian and do not deal with the problem, he should say so, not advance that silly argument, ''Let's do it, but let's do it next year.'' I have seen legislation massively improved by pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills and during Committee proceedings. If people engage properly in the debate they can have input and improve measures that the Government introduce. I sense that the hon. Gentleman does not really support the measures in the Bill, but does not want to come out and say so. He would rather ask why we did not consult, or why we do not act in two years' time.

Liz Blackman: The police in my area wholeheartedly welcome the provisions as they stand in the Bill. They see them as an effective way of challenging and dealing with a rapidly growing problem, and would not want them to be lost in a lengthy consultation. They feel that the measures are just about right to deal with the current problem.

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right. Let us get on and do it. If we need to take further measures or do something else because of an ongoing nuisance in a
 particular area, let us be courageous enough to act at the appropriate time.
 We may come later to the other points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South raised about landlords, reasonable steps and so on. We must get the provisions absolutely right. We have to expect good behaviour from people, but we need to cover in guidance what constitute reasonable steps on the part of landlords. We intend to do exactly that. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Closure order

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in
clause 2, page 2, line 41, at end insert 
 'or as soon as reasonably practicable'.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 21, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 14, after 'may', insert 
 '(but is not required to)'.
 Amendment No. 22, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 14, leave out third 'the'.
 Amendment No. 23, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert 
 'but the court has an absolute discretion to refuse adjournment if it considers that the public interest requires that a decision should be made as a matter of urgency.'.

Nick Hawkins: I can be relatively brief. Amendment No. 17 is intended to give greater flexibility. I hope that the Minister will accept this as a genuine attempt to try to improve the Bill. The Government's choice of wording here is too restrictive. Rather than matters having to be heard by the magistrates within 48 hours we suggest that it should be
''as soon as reasonably practicable.''
 I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say about that. 
 Amendment No. 21 falls into a similar category. Subsection (6) gives the court the power to adjourn the hearing; the amendment would add that it is not required to do so. We think that that would provide greater flexibility. I see the Minister nodding slightly: I hope that he is acknowledging that we are not trying to damage the Bill, but seeking a little more flexibility. 
 I shall not press amendment No. 22. The Minister said earlier that he was up at 5 am preparing for today's business—he is always extremely diligent. I first read the part of clause 2 to which the amendment is addressed in the early hours of the morning, and I thought that I had seen a typographical error, but on reading it again in the cold light of day, I realised that my initial thoughts were mistaken and that the draftsman knew better than I did. 
 I am sure that the Minister has spotted that amendment No. 23 is more significant. We want the courts to have absolute discretion to refuse an 
 adjournment if they consider that the public interest requires a decision as a matter of urgency. It comes back to my experience at the sharp end in the courts and the sort of case to which the hon. Member for Stockton, South referred on clause 1 stand part. Referring to parts of her constituency, she said that a faceless, anonymous and unknown company that owns a lot of property could put to the court all kinds of specious excuses for why a matter should not be dealt with there and then. 
 We are talking about serious nuisances in communities and really serious drug offenders. It seems to us that it should be made absolutely clear in the Bill that the court does not have to accept specious reasons for adjourning a hearing, whether at the instigation of a property company, or of one of the drugs suppliers or dealers. Although the court's powers are usually considered to be unfettered—unless fettered by specific legislation—it would probably help if we made it clear in the Bill that the court has the discretion to refuse an adjournment and that the court should have the public interest as its prime consideration. 
 The Minister will understand that amendment No. 23 is of greater substance, although I hope that he will deal also with amendments Nos. 17 and 21.

Annette Brooke: When I first read the amendments, I found them rather seductive. However, I have some concerns and I hope that the Minister will answer them.
 I am concerned that one can go too far the other way and not have enough safeguards, and that cases would be adjourned whenever it was thought necessary. It also occurs to me that malicious allegations could be made. Although amendment No. 23 seems a common-sense proposal, I wonder what would be the test of public interest in such cases; I am not sure what level of public interest is involved. It is a matter of great importance. If instant action needs to be taken—perhaps there are lots of drugs or arms involved and some high-profile action needed—amendment No. 23 would make a lot of sense, but it might remove the opportunity to protect the innocent. 
 Although I have a certain sympathy with the amendments, I am concerned that they go too far. I shall not decide my response until I have heard the Minister's reply.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath will be pleased to hear that I, too, found his words quite seductive.
 One of the essential elements of the power is its speed in tackling the serious problem of premises that cause serious nuisance and disruption to communities. It is essential that a closure notice be endorsed by a court at the earliest opportunity. 
 The 48-hour period between the issuing of a closure notice and its consideration by a magistrates court has been chosen to allow for all reasonable delays. Consideration has been given to likely delays caused by Sundays, bank holidays and other public holidays, and we are clear that the courts have the capacity to consider the cases within that time. Delay would result 
 in an inability to provide the community with instant relief from antisocial behaviour, which is why I am not enamoured of the lead amendment.

Nick Hawkins: Perhaps the Minister misunderstands the intended effect of the amendment. We are not saying that the reference to 48 hours should be removed; we are trying to add the words
''or as soon as reasonably practicable'',
 so that a court is not forced to bring magistrates in on a Sunday or bank holiday Monday if the closure notice was served late on Friday night. Sadly, disturbances requiring instant police action quite often happen late on a Friday or Saturday night. We are saying only that the court should have flexibility. The words 
''as soon as reasonably practicable''
 would still mean quite a short time scale. 
 We simply want to make life a little easier for magistrates. I used to practise in the city of Coventry, which includes the Minister's constituency. In large urban areas, one can usually get hold of a bench of magistrates, but in some of the smaller towns in the more remote areas, which nevertheless have drug problems, that might be quite difficult. One would not want to lose the whole basis for a closure order because the police said, ''We can't serve this now because we can't get a bench of magistrates within 48 hours.'' Would it not be helpful to include in the Bill at least the words 
''or as soon as reasonably practicable''
 without delaying matters?

Bob Ainsworth: I am simply worried that opening up the legislation would lead to it being ''reasonably practicable'' on too many occasions to deal with cases in periods longer than 48 hours. I have no desire to disrupt magistrates' lives unnecessarily; equally, however, I have no desire to allow situations that are disrupting people's lives to go on for unreasonable periods. I am happy to think about what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have been considering this matter for some time and, as I said, we are convinced that 48 hours is workable. If I remain convinced that that is so, I will not open up the legislation so that people can delay and frustrate the process. I need to be convinced that there is a real practical bar to dealing with these matters within 48 hours.

Matthew Green: I am with the Minister on this point. There are different interpretations of what this part of the Bill is supposed to do. Surely the intention is that the police will act fairly strategically when they move in to close down premises. There seems to be an idea that, late on a Friday night, the police will suddenly hear about premises that they have not heard about before, and that they will rush out, slap a closure notice on them and try to drag the magistrates in over the weekend. However, we are dealing with a much more strategic matter. There will have been intelligence, and the police will probably have been involved in surveillance and consulted the local authority. They will act not at 9 pm on a Friday, but
 at a time when a 48-hour time frame is entirely reasonable.

Bob Ainsworth: There will be circumstances in which these issues arise. Action will need to be taken at weekends and cases taken to the court as soon as possible. I would be hugely worried about the signal that we would send if we removed the reference to 48 hours. I will look at what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, because he raises this point seriously and has practised in the courts. If he thinks that the provision will not be practical in some circumstances, we are prepared to consider it again between now and Report but, as I said, I have had people look at the provision and they say that it is not a problem. If I remain convinced that it is not a problem, I will stick with a provision that is clear and that sends a clear message about how quickly these matters should be dealt with and that does not allow anyone to feel that they can delay for longer than is necessary. Where evidence is sufficient and convincing, the court may issue a closure order immediately. There is nothing to stop it from acting quickly, within 48 hours, when it believes that instant closure is the best way in which to provide relief for the community.
 I had to smile at what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said. Ringing in my ears is what has been said about all the dreadful, draconian measures that I have taken through Committee in the past year or so—about how the Government are limiting the discretion of the courts and imposing mandatory requirements. Yet the hon. Gentleman is saying, ''Wait a minute. Let's not give anybody any discretion.'' I am in one of my more authoritarian modes.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister is welcome to be in authoritarian mode. Although I do not mind his making the point that he just made, I hope that he realises that amendments Nos. 21 and 23 are designed not to reduce the court's discretion, but to make clear how wide the court's discretion is. We are not trying to be more draconian than the Minister.

Bob Ainsworth: I would hate the hon. Gentleman to be more draconian than me after everything that he has said to me over the past year or so.
 By providing an option to adjourn for up to 14 days, we have taken account of any additional time that the court may require. The court has discretion in allowing an adjournment. It is an option to be used when the court feels that the owner or tenant will be able to stop the misuse of the premises within the period of the adjournment. That allows those who face the closure of their property to take action to convince the court that they are both willing to resolve the problem and capable of doing so before their property is removed from them for ever, or for a period of time if they are the owners. If that proves unsuccessful, the closure order can still be made. 
 Before Report, I will think about what the hon. Gentleman said, because I do not want to provide a wider discretion for the court to consider adjournment when that is not absolutely necessary. Bringing relief is the most importance consideration. If there is real potential for permanent relief in a relatively short time, 
 we need to leave that possibility open. I do not want the courts to misinterpret the provision and think that they can simply adjourn cases, which in effect, by another means, would turn a 48-hour time frame into something longer. I do not want that type of practice to spread. However, before Report I will think again about what the hon. Gentleman said. If I perceive that there is a real problem, I will table an amendment.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister both for what he said and for the spirit in which he said it. It is good of him to confirm that he will reconsider the wording. We do not want to drive a coach and horses through the Bill or provide extra scope for people to delay. We are trying to ensure that magistrates' lives are not made impossible and to acknowledge what happens at the sharp end.
 As I asked in relation to an earlier group of amendments, when the Minister takes advice, will he make a particular point of talking to some Crown prosecution solicitors—perhaps in his home city—who have to deal with such cases in court? He should ask them—he might know some of them personally—about the kind of thing that lawyers on the other side will say and the excuses they will use if the Bill is left unamended. 
 There is always a danger in any bureaucracy—this is not in any sense a party political point—that people higher up the tree will say, ''Well, of course, Minister, your legislation must be absolutely wonderful,'' because they know that that is what Ministers like to hear. However, the Minister takes the issues seriously, and will want to try to anticipate any loopholes and close them. I am grateful to him and I am glad that he will consider the matter again before Report. At this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 187, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 2, after 'use', insert ', production'.
 No. 188, in 
clause 2, page 3, line 26, after 'use', insert ', production'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Vernon Coaker: I shall make some brief remarks about closure orders. I think that this will be a recurring theme in the Bill. To get a closure order, the case has to go to the magistrates court. Clause 2(3) states that
''The magistrates' court may make a closure order if and only if it is satisfied that each of the following paragraphs applies''.
 It stresses ''and only if''. Paragraph (a) is self-explanatory—it applies if class A drugs are being used and supplied at the property. However, paragraph (b) applies if: 
''the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public'',
 and paragraph (c) if: 
''the making of the order is necessary to prevent the occurrence of such disorder or serious nuisance for the period specified in the order.''
 Paragraph (b) in particular will require evidence to be given at the magistrates court. My experience of talking to constituents and other hon. Members is that it is often difficult for police, environmental health officers, or anybody who might try to get a closure order through the magistrates court to obtain the necessary evidence, because people are terrified. Given the sort of people associated with crack houses, it will be difficult to get evidence that stands up in court. My local authority will often not take tenants to the magistrates court because it cannot get evidence against antisocial tenants. 
 When moving on from considering antisocial tenants to dealing with crack houses, which are often associated with gun crime, we need to reflect on the processes of evidence gathering. We have introduced all sorts of programmes to protect witnesses and to ensure that they are not intimidated when they go before the courts, but in all communities it is a serious problem to get people to come forward to give evidence to the court, to people in authority or to the police so that they can take action. We must consider how to ensure that, when applications go to court, there is sufficient evidence for the magistrates to make the closure order and that we do not witness the awful but common situation in which evidence is not presented because people are terrified of the consequences of providing it.

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend raises the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South. They are concerned to ensure that we have not set the barrier too high and that we are not rendering the powers difficult to use. I am as concerned as he is, and I have been trying to satisfy myself fully that we have not done that. I intend to continue to do that. When we say ''satisfied'', we mean that the court needs to be satisfied with regard to class A drugs. That might not be as straightforward as he might think, but we are talking about the balance of probability; not proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The police officer will have to have good reason and the court will have to be satisfied, and in order to be satisfied it will have to decide that the balance of probability is that the premises are being used for the sale, use, manufacture or production of class A drugs.
 On the issue of nuisance, we expect to give guidance to lead the court in the direction of what constitutes serious nuisance and to allow professional witnesses to give evidence to that effect. My hon. Friend is right; getting near neighbours to give evidence is often the biggest barrier to taking action. Their lives are being plagued and they know that there is a massive problem in their area. Equally, they feel that if they come forward and give evidence, the consequences for them will be appalling. We must make certain that the power is usable from that point of view. It should be sufficient for guidance to say that if a local authority officer testifies to the fact that in the near area noise has been a continual problem, needles or other drug paraphernalia have been found in the near area and there has been an increase in prostitution over a period of time, the power can be invoked. Professional witnesses giving their evidence should satisfy the court enough for it to give the notice. 
 I want to continue to satisfy myself that that is the case, as I know that my hon. Friends will want to do. We know the size of the nuisance that exists, and we are determined to have a power for which the hurdle is set at the right level. It is not too high so that the police walk away from it because it is too difficult to use. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will continue to focus on the issue. I am as aware of it as he is. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Closure order: enforcement

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 131, in
clause 3, page 3, line 29, leave out 'or an authorised person'.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 132, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out '(2)' and insert '(2)(a)'.
 Amendment No. 25, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 37, leave out 'before' and insert 'when'.

Annette Brooke: Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 are designed to probe the Minister for more information. My concern is about the idea of a
''constable or an authorised person'',
 particularly when they enter a premises in respect of which an order is made. In our previous discussion, we were concerned about a local authority imposing a closure order, and it could be dangerous for someone to walk into the premises that we have discussed. I am rerunning some of a debate that I have previously had with the Minister when all Opposition Members had concerns about the powers given to community support and safety officers in dangerous situations. Are we talking about local authority workers? I would be concerned about their walking into a dangerous situation. 
 I should explain amendment No. 132, as it has taken me some time to get my head round it. The concern follows on from the idea of the authorised person. In particular, we are concerned about the application of subsection (2)(b) by an authorised person rather than a constable or other police officer. I will leave my comments at that. The amendments are probing, but I have deep concerns about an ''authorised person'' being put in a dangerous situation without having the training necessary to deal with it.

Nick Hawkins: I want briefly to explain our amendment No. 25. I understand the hon. Lady's comments about her amendments and will listen with interest to the Minister's response. Our amendment is also to probe, but I hope that the Minister will give me the helpful reply that he gave to a couple of previous groups of amendments, in which he said that he would consider them carefully to see whether the Government could come up with amendments to improve the Bill before Report. The amendment is,
 again, about a debate that happens in court, and the Minister and his advisers will know that whenever police officers are required to provide information before entering premises or arresting someone, it leads to endless hours of debate and cross-examination in court.
 Subsection (4) is too restrictive. At the moment, it says that a constable or authorised person must 
''produce evidence of his identity and authority before entering the premises.''
 I can envisage much cross-examination of police officers or other authorised persons in which they are told that they did not show the people in the premises the warrant card or authority before entering. We have seen on television, if not in real life, the police using battering rams and other such equipment to break into premises used by drug dealers, for example, so it would be more realistic for them to show any warrant ''when'' they are entering the property. Provided that police officers who are in the process of entry show that they are police officers in uniform with a warrant card, such an approach would avoid the opening of another loophole. 
 If we are going to have this legislation, I want it to be workable. I do not want it to present opportunities for people to challenge the enforcement of the closure order. Therefore, it seemed to me that it would be very helpful to change the word ''before'' to the word ''when''. That would lead to less of a loophole, and to fewer hours of debates in courts, analysing what has happened, and whether the police or other authorised persons have acted properly. It is a small point, but it is one that I hope the Minister will take seriously. The intention on these Benches is to improve the Bill.

Matthew Green: I rise to support both amendment No. 131 and the Conservative amendment, which makes a great deal of sense. [Interruption.] Yes, I know that I have a look of surprise on my face.
 The police may suspect gun crime in a property, without necessarily having evidence. An officer knocking nicely on the door, showing his warrant card, and saying that he will issue something may not be appropriate in all circumstances. The police may feel that they need to go in wearing bullet-proof vests and beating the door down, because they would be under threat if they were to knock on the door gently. It is for exactly that reason that amendment No. 131 is so important, because it could be another authorised person who does that, instead of a police officer. The police are trained to deal with those situations and have access to firearms and equipment that they might need to deal with dangerous situations. I cannot think of any other authorised person who would have access to such equipment and training. Unless the Minister pulls something out of the hat, it will essentially be police officers. I think that amendment No. 131 and the Conservative amendment make a great deal of sense for the safety of the people involved in dealing with a potentially very dangerous situation.

Bob Ainsworth: Before we get carried away with the supposed stupidity of the proposals in the Bill, we
 should consider whom we are talking about, and how it would work.

Nick Hawkins: I did not say that.

Bob Ainsworth: I was not referring to comments made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, but to comments made by his new friend, the hon. Member for Ludlow.
 When premises are subject to a closure writ, it is essential that they be fully secured. That would not necessarily happen during the initial raid. I refer to the enforcement of a court order that has taken place any time up to 48 hours after the initial closure took place by the police. That security will be necessary to prevent the property from being reoccupied and used for drug supply or use. It will also prevent the property from being taken over by squatters.

Nick Hawkins: I understand entirely what the Minister is saying, and I can see that enforcement may take place after a court order. The Minister spoke about going in and securing premises against squatters or reoccupation. That reoccupation may have been happening while the case was going on in court. Therefore, the same people that I and the hon. Member for Ludlow have mentioned, who might be carrying guns, or who might be large-scale drug dealers, may be just as much a threat to the police after the order has been made as they were in the first instance.

Bob Ainsworth: That is very true, but the hon. Gentleman should have a little consistency and a little patience. He will recall that, earlier in our debate this morning, he proposed that these powers be used without the police leading the circumstance.

Nick Hawkins: It is not my amendment.

Bob Ainsworth: If he waits, he will see the effect of the amendment. The amendments would affect the ability of the police to ensure that the job is done effectively. It is not, in my opinion, a good use of police time for them to be carrying out the works that are required to secure the building. I do not know whether every constable has carpentry skills at his disposal. Although it should be a police-led operation—as we said this morning, those situations can be very dangerous—there will surely be a need for local authority workers to be present. They are present at other evictions in order to seal the premises, to secure them, to turn off the gas and to check all circumstances. Do we want a police constable to do that and to be given the necessary training in order to do so? Surely the constable would go in with a team of local authority workers or contractors, who will install security devices. A person engaged in that work needs to be authorised by the police. We do not want people to turn up and to secure premises without the permission and co-operation of the police.

Matthew Green: I can see where the Minister is coming from, and in many ways I agree with him. However, the problem may not be that the amendment is wrong. Subsection (2) states:
''A constable or an authorised person may'',
 which leaves it open for a council worker alone to turn up to do the work. The Minister might want to make it 
 clear that a police officer should be present when a possession takes place. We understand that someone needs to board up the windows and to brick up the doors, but as the Bill stands a council worker could be sent to brick up a house occupied by dangerous people.

James Cran: Order. Hon. Members have clearly not listened to me. I said some time ago that interventions should be short, and I will insist that they are from now on.
Mr. Ainsworth rose—

Nick Hawkins: Before the Minister responds, will he take a short intervention? He may want to examine my point with that made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. If the clause concerns a purely peaceful visit from an authorised person, there is no need for subsection (3), which states:
''A person acting under subsection (2) may use reasonable force.''
 If the clause addresses a situation in which people may need to use force, surely our point about a violent entry is important.

Bob Ainsworth: I am sure that it is.
 It may well be that ''may'' is not needed. In Coventry, for instance—I am sure that this is true of many major urban areas—the council has developed its own security service that seals up premises in difficult circumstances. Its modus operandi involves the police, who ensure that it is backed up and is not left out on its own. However, the security service often gets involved in sealing premises that have been used for purposes such as squatting, and it often does that on its own. It needs to be satisfied that it is safe, and it needs to liaise with the police to ensure that back-up is available, but there are circumstances in which it will want to seal premises and the police will want it to do so. 
 There is nothing wrong with the use of the word ''may''. We are attempting to achieve effective partnership between local authority agencies, which pick up the pieces when those powers have been used. They relocate people, rehouse them when necessary, deal with any children involved and secure premises. In many cases, the premises will belong to a local authority or a registered social landlord, and local authorities have developed their expertise in those matters over a period of time. A constable must serve the enforcement of the initial closure order, but after that there is the practical consideration of who does what in order properly to enforce the court order and to secure the premises.

Annette Brooke: Subsection (3) states:
''A person acting under subsection (2) may use reasonable force''.
 Is that reasonable force against property or against people? That makes a big difference.

Bob Ainsworth: It is reasonable force against property. I know of circumstances in which council employees have had to break windows to secure properties, sometimes acting on behalf of absent tenants whose properties have been broken into and are open to further burglary. Reasonable force has to
 be used to secure the property for the tenants. That does not involve community support officers or accredited persons. We are not trying to get local authority workers to do the dangerous work needed, which is quite properly undertaken by properly trained police officers; equally, however, we do not want police officers to have to have carpentry and locksmith's skills to secure premises.

Matthew Green: To clarify this point, if reasonable force is intended to be used only against the building not against a person, it perhaps should be put on the face of the Bill. At present, it states that
''an authorised person . . . may use reasonable force.''
 A council employee could use reasonable force against a person in the building. I should like some clarification that the building is the specific subject.

Bob Ainsworth: A constable may use reasonable force against individuals in the first place to effect the notice and to assist those who are securing the premises. Liberal Democrat Members suspect a problem that does not exist. The police must do the police job. It will be necessary in many circumstances for them to use reasonable force against people who refuse to vacate the premises. People who have involved themselves in the sale and supply of class A drugs can be extremely violent. It is not a job for local authority workers, but local authority workers—properly approved people—need to come in to enforce the court order by securing the premises. If the hon. Gentleman has genuine fears that the Bill does something other than that, I will look into the matter to satisfy myself that it does not, but he is worrying unnecessarily and I hope that I can satisfy him in that respect.
 In securing a property by, for example, installing security screens over windows, it is likely that some minor damage will be caused to the property. Restricting the use of reasonable force would mean that the police and the authorised persons working on their behalf could not secure the property against illegal access. Those servicing the closure order can enter the property without the permission of the occupiers. However, if they are requested to provide proof of their identity and authority before they enter the premises, it is only right and proper that they should do so. 
 The current wording, ''before'', ensures the same consequence as the proposed amendment's ''when''. I was trying to fathom when ''when'' would work and when ''before'' would not work. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath got carried away with his example. With the momentum gained from battering down the door, the constable might find himself inside the premises before he had managed to show his warrant card. 
 The provision is in line with the way in which the police operate under other legislation. ''When'' could be as problematical as ''before''. A lawyer could argue that the officer did not show his warrant card before he entered the premises, but did so after he gained entry—in other words, when he was entering. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a point that that 
 has identified with his lawyerly skills, I am happy to look at it, but people have looked at it and believe that ''before'' is the appropriate word that covers the circumstances that concern him.

Nick Hawkins: As I hoped, the Minister is dealing with the point seriously. We do not suggest for a moment that ''when'' is perfect; I simply thought that it was an improvement on ''before'' for the reasons I set out. Perhaps he and his advisers can come up with another form of wording. I ask him to talk to people at the sharp end to see whether they do not agree that ''before'' may be too restrictive.

Bob Ainsworth: As I said, I can see that ''when'' could be just as problematical. However, we shall continue to look at it and if we think that he is on to something—we do not believe that he is—we shall seek to make the changes. We need to ensure that the job of securing the property is done as effectively as possible. It would be inappropriate either to exclude the authorised persons and insist that only the police enforce the closure order, or to restrict the ability to use reasonable force in carrying out that role.
 Although I really do not believe that there is a problem, I offer the caveat that I shall continue to consider the issues and if the provisions effectively allow a non-police officer to do a police job, the necessary changes can be made. However, I do not think that that will be necessary. The provisions are about allowing the reasonable force that is necessary to do the job to be used by both the police and those whom the police authorise to take part in the process of sealing and securing a property.

Annette Brooke: I am pleased that the Minister has said that he will look again at all the issues. That is particularly pertinent as far as amendment No. 25 is concerned. I am rather glad that we tabled the probing amendments and that we had the debate, because as it progressed it became clearer where my greatest concerns lie.
 The issue centres on subsection (3), which states that 
''A person acting under subsection (2) may use reasonable force.''
 I can envisage the carpenter doing the work being jumped on, perhaps by someone under the influence of drugs who has got back into the premises. Such a situation will be difficult for everybody involved, because there will be an element of self-defence and fear when that person is not trained to deal with such circumstances. I accept the Minister's assurances that he will look at the matter again, but my concern has increased during the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dari Taylor: I seek a small but important point of clarification and advice from the Minister. Subsection (5) refers to
''carrying out essential maintenance of or repairs to the premises.''
 Does that imply a duty of care or an additional legal responsibility for the police?

Bob Ainsworth: I do not believe that it does. The word used is ''may'', but we do not want anyone to be under the illusion that in order for such things to be done the premises that have been secured may not be entered. We do not want the property to be destroyed by the elements or for the utilities to go wrong, so the provision gives the police permission to enter the premises at any time while the order is in effect to carry out essential maintenance or repairs. I do not believe that the provision gives any obligation or duty of care.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Extension and discharge of closure order

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in
clause 5, page 4, line 42, leave out 'three' and insert 'twelve'.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 32, in 
clause 5, page 4, line 43, leave out 'six months' and insert 'two years'.
 Amendment No. 33, in 
clause 5, page 5, line 9, leave out subsection (7).
 Amendment No. 34, in 
clause 5, page 5, line 17, leave out 'must' and insert 
 'should if possible, if circumstances permit'.
 Amendment No. 189. 
 Amendment No. 35, in 
clause 5, page 5, line 25, at end insert 
 'but failure to effect service shall not invalidate the proceedings and shall not prevent a hearing taking place'.

Nick Hawkins: There is only one group of amendments under clause 5. Among the amendments that my hon. Friends and I have tabled, there is a Government amendment. I wonder if I can ask the Minister whether Government amendment No. 189 is a correction of a mistake. [Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding—even Homer nods occasionally. It is nice that the Government have spotted it before the Bill makes further progress. I am glad about that, and I have no problem with the amendment.
 Amendment No. 31 relates to the length of time for which courts can extend the period of a closure notice. We are talking about serious nuisances—that is the term that the Government used in earlier clauses—and we believe that the courts should be able to extent the period for 12 months; three months is not long enough. In amendment No. 32, because we think that six months is not long enough, we provide that the maximum should be two years. Amendment No. 33 would leave out subsection (7), because we think that there is a need to save police time. 
 I am anxious to ensure that cases are not adjourned simply because the police constable involved—the word ''constable'' is used generally, but it could be an 
 officer of any rank—is not available because of other duties. I am sorry to keep using the phrase, but based on my years practising in the criminal courts, I know that one of the biggest wastes of court time is caused by the fact that the police officer is on sick leave, otherwise unavailable, on annual leave, or giving evidence in another case in another court. The whole shooting match then has to be adjourned, sometimes for months, until the same bench of magistrates is available. It is a huge waste of time. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that, and I hope that he will think it sensible that individual officers should not be summoned to answer the complaint. The Minister may not foresee those consequences arising, and I shall listen with interest to his response. 
 Through amendment No. 34, we would leave out the word ''must'' and put in its place the phrase 
''should if possible, if circumstances permit''.
 At the moment, subsection (9) states that 
''a notice stating the date, time and place at which the complaint will be heard must be served on'',
 followed by a list of the persons to whom the summons is directed: those listed in paragraphs (6)(c) and (d), and the constable and the local authority. I am not worried about the constable and the local authority—unless they are the complainants—but we are talking about people who may be quite difficult to find. For instance, they may be squatters, as was suggested in an earlier debate, or serious drug offenders. I am concerned that the whole procedure should not be stopped simply because the courts are unable to effect service. It would strengthen the Bill considerably if it included a catch-all discretion of the sort suggested in the amendment. 
 I referred to the various problems that we are having in my constituency with gypsies and travellers, and I know that they are a worry to many other hon. Members of all parties and in all parts of the country. Such people deliberately try to avoid having anything served on them relating to court. Many cases are delayed or stopped altogether because the people who are supposed effect service of documents say that they cannot not find the person involved: they say, ''They all claim to be called George Smith and we could not find Bill Jones—the person who was supposed to be served.'' Although one can always serve constables and local authorities, it would make the Bill a great deal stronger—there would be less of a loophole for use by those running crack houses—if it said that the service of the notice on the persons listed in paragraphs (9)(a) and (b) should be effected ''if possible'' and ''if circumstances permit''. 
 Amendment No. 35 has the effect that failure to effect service should not invalidate proceedings and should not prevent a hearing taking place. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are both aimed at the same mischief. I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit of the amendments and perhaps in due course the letter. 
 We are making a genuine attempt to improve the Bill because we are very much aware that the closure notices will be important if the legislation is to work. That is why we suggest that the closure notices should 
 apply for a long time. We do not want a crack house or other drug-dealing establishment to be closed down for a short period, only to reopen after three months and one day so that the whole procedure has to start again, and we are sure that the Minister does not want that either. If the premises can be closed for a substantial time—a maximum of two years—we may find that we have dealt with the nuisance in a more final way. 
 I hope that dealing with our amendments compendiously has been helpful. I did not want to detain the Committee long, but I stress that these are not probing amendments; they deal with matters of great substance.

Vernon Coaker: Following on from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, may I ask the Minister about a matter that has baffled a few of us? Whether the closure order is for three months, six months or whatever, if the closure notice and then the closure order were served on a council tenant who had control of the property, could the tenant return to the property after the three or six months, or would he or she automatically lose that property? Similarly, if it were a housing association property, what would happen to the tenant of the housing association on whom the notice was served?
 I take the point of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath; the period is open to debate—there always has to be a judgment about that—but none of us wants to see premises that have been closed down reopening after three months or six months. What is the position after three or six months of the tenant of a council or housing association who is in the property when the closure notice or closure order is served on it? Can he or she return to the property?

Matthew Green: This group of amendments highlights some interesting issues. The time issue is sensitive: while we have sympathy with the point that the problem should not recur, we know that in many parts of the country there is a shortage of premises to rent, so properties that have been closed down need to be brought back into the housing market as quickly as possible. There is a balance to be struck. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why periods of three and six months have been specified and what consultation was held to arrive at them. It is not a simple matter of closing a place down for a couple of years—in some places that would cause great distress to a completely unrelated family who were denied access to a house that they needed. The matter has to be addressed.
 We are concerned about amendment No. 33. There might be cases, particularly under subsection (6)(d), of 
''a person who has an interest in a closed premises but on whom the closure notice was not served,''
 returning and wanting the property back. Some students own houses—perhaps they are bought for them by their parents. After university, they go round the world for six months; they rent the house to somebody who decides to run a crack house. The local authority closes it down. The owner, who was untraceable while backpacking round the world, 
 returns to discover a boarded-up house. The effect of the Conservative amendment would be to remove the ability of the court to direct the constable who asked for the closure to explain what had happened, and then to take a decision. I am surprised that the Conservatives would want to harm property owners who might, wholly unintentionally, have been caught out in that way. The amendment is therefore somewhat surprising. 
 We have, however, a great deal of sympathy with amendment No. 34. Clearly, there are cases in which it will be extremely difficult to serve a notice. Clause 5(9) refers to 
''the persons to whom the summons is directed''
 and 
''the persons mentioned in subsection 6(c) and (d)''.
 Subsection (6)(c) refers to 
''a person on whom the closure notice relating to the closed premises was served''.
 However, the person may well be nowhere to be found. The idea that a notice must be served may cause problems—after all, we are dealing in many cases with people whose are transient. 
 This is an interesting mixed bag of amendments. The first couple of amendments raise interesting questions, and we want to hear the Minister justify the time periods. We have concerns about houses not being available for other families to move into. Amendment No. 33 could cause quite severe difficulties to genuine owners of properties who were not related to the problem. Amendment No. 34 appears sensible, in that it would prevent the system from being clogged up by the failure to locate someone who was, or was involved in, running a crack den or crack house, and who was perhaps in Thailand trying to pick some more up and to import it into the country. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments seriously, particularly amendment No. 34.

Bob Ainsworth: Extending the duration of the closure order through amendments Nos. 31 and 32 is unnecessary and undesirable. The power will be used in specific circumstances against premises known by the police to be a source of drug supply or use, and to be causing aggravation to the community by serious nuisance and disorder. Such premises need to be brought back into proper use as soon as possible to encourage strong and healthy communities. Leaving premises empty for longer than is necessary sends the wrong message to and about neighbourhoods that are trying to rid themselves of those problems. Extending the closure period would have no additional value in ensuring control over supply but could have considerable negative effects such as vandalism, squatting and arson as well as a negative visual impact.
 The police have increasingly to consider this issue, and they cannot prosecute in all circumstances. Sometimes, they have to use the powers that we are trying to give them through various measures to disrupt the supply to the drugs market. Where areas have serious difficulties of that type, the relevant partnership will discuss the use of the powers. It will 
 secure agreement as to how they will be used, and they will be used to disrupt the drugs market and move people out of consistent patterns of supply. The length of time for which the Bill provides is sufficient to ensure that, at worst, the supply is moved somewhere else, where we may need to take exactly the same measures to keep on top of the problem and to keep the market secured. To drive out the nuisance and to bring the premises back into good and proper use, we need not keep the premises closed for the lengths of time that the Opposition suggest. 
 Instead of the proposed extension, there is a need for close consultation with local authorities by the police. Local authorities and other landlords will need to take swift action to retrieve the property and to bring in new occupants. The duration of the closure order as the legislation is drafted ensures that the premises can be retrieved by possession proceedings through the courts where appropriate. 
 That brings me on to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. There will be no automatic denial of reoccupation by the individual but the period when the property is in effect sealed and they have been removed gives the local authority or registered social landlord the ability to effect possession procedures to ensure that that individual does not return if that is what it thinks is right and appropriate. In those circumstances, it can let the premises to someone else. 
 It is not a blanket ban. One can envisage circumstances in which it would be appropriate to allow someone to move back into the premises—perhaps a vulnerable person who has been abused, or whose property has been effectively taken over. If that person has particular reasons for wanting to live in that area, if the local authority believes that it would be appropriate and safe for them to return to those premises after the stated period, and if the local authority believes that reoccupation was not going to result in the resumption of illegal activity, that local authority ought to be free to make a balanced judgment. In cases where a local authority does not want the occupants back, it can go through the normal possession period while the premises are effectively secured. 
 Amendment No. 33 removes the power of the court to call relevant constables to give evidence. It is essential that, in considering the discharge of a closure order, the correct representation and information is before the court. The court must consider whether that closure order is no longer necessary to prevent disorder and serious nuisance. Advice on that can be gained only through consultation with the police. That does not necessarily involve a particular officer, who may not be on shift or may have been moved. We envisaged that the appeals would be moved against senior officers, who would delegate the responsibility to turn up at court and to give evidence. The bureaucratic problem that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath envisages is not a problem in reality.

Nick Hawkins: I hope that the Minister will understand that the Bill as drafted says,
''the justice may issue a summons directed to such constable as he thinks appropriate''.
 The problem is that, whatever the Government intended, and however much the Minister is able to flesh it out in his response, the justice of the peace has complete discretion. If the justice of the peace issues a summons to one particular constable, we will have precisely the problem that I am talking about. I hope that the Minister will talk to his advisers and think about that issue again.

Bob Ainsworth: I will, but I would not wish to deny the court the ability to take that action where there were special circumstances in which the court needed to interrogate a particular individual. I believe that the overwhelming majority of orders will be against senior officers, who will delegate the responsibility to appear in front of magistrates. However, I will look at the issue. If I am advised that the situation is other than the one that I have set out, I will let the hon. Gentleman know. I accept that the situation that he has set out would be unworkable. I am sure that he is not trying to deny the court the ability to summon an individual, in cases where that court felt that it was essential.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister is right. I am not intending to deny the court that opportunity but I wanted to highlight the fact that there is a genuine problem. Perhaps what the Minister needs to do after he talks to his advisers is table a Government amendment—either on Report or in another place—that makes clear in the Bill the delegation that he is talking about. That is not what the Bill says, as drafted.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman can take that as read. I will check that what is in the Bill does what I am saying it ought to do, rather than what he fears it might do.
 Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 raise a valid point about the requirement for notice of a hearing in relation to an application for extension or discharge of the order to be served on all parties, and the possible effect that that could have on proceedings if that is not observed. That merits further consideration. I propose to look at it again and to return to it on Report. 
 Amendment No. 189, as the hon. Gentleman rightly assumed, puts right a typographical error that would have been spotted on re-reading. 
 I request that the Committee agrees to Government amendment No. 189 and that, in light of the assurances that I have given, hon. Members do not press their amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 34 and 35.

Nick Hawkins: I am delighted to hear what the Minister says about amendments Nos. 34 and 35, and that he has firmly stated that he thinks that we have a genuine point, which he will consider. I hope that that will result in some Government amendments that deal with it.
 It is not our intention to prevent authorities from putting accommodation back into legitimate use. However, I say to both the hon. Member for Ludlow and the Minister that all we will do by extending the maximum time is to give the court greater powers. The courts will know the housing situation in their areas. 
 Legislation that states, as we suggest, that a closure order must not have effect for more than two years and that the courts may extend the period for which the order has effect by a period not exceeding 12 months does not specify that those periods must be 12 months and two years; each is a maximum. 
 There may be circumstances in which courts want to avoid a restart of the misuse of the property after three months and one day. The hon. Member for Gedling and others on the Government Back Benches have talked about that matter. In the cases of serious drug misuse that this part of the Bill seeks to deal with, there is a fear that, if the time limits are too short—they cannot in any circumstances be longer than three months and six months—the problem could recur in the very way that we want to avoid. If we were proposing an amendment that said it had to be 12 months or two years in every case, I could understand the argument better. Giving the courts the power to use the longer time limits if appropriate—that is all that we suggest—is a serious option. 
 The Minister says that he will consider the matter and the hon. Member for Ludlow was fair in saying that there is always a judgment to be made about the appropriate maximum time limit. I understand the point about bringing accommodation back into use. All that our amendment seeks to do is to give the courts a wide maximum and complete discretion within it. We have discussed the point about the constables and the Minister has agreed to have further discussions on the matter. I am grateful to him. Given that he will consider all the points that were made in this useful debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 189, in 
clause 5, page 5, line 20, leave out '(2)' and insert '(3)'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
 Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Appeals

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in
clause 6, page 5, line 35, leave out '21' and insert '42'.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 37, in 
clause 6, page 5, line 36, at end insert 
 'but may be brought immediately after the original order or decision'.

Nick Hawkins: I can be brief. These are probing amendments. We thought that it was worth debating the appropriate time limit. If I may adopt what was said by both the hon. Member for Ludlow and the Minister in the previous debate, there is always a judgment to be made about what the appropriate time limit is. We felt that it may be sensible to have not merely 21 days as the limit for an appeal but 42 days—
 six weeks—because it is not unknown for people, absolutely legitimately, to take three weeks' holiday, whereas it is pretty unusual for somebody to be away for six weeks. That is the basis of my suggestion that 21 days may be a bit on the short side.
 Amendment No. 37 is on a similar point. We felt that we may make the Bill more flexible by saying that an appeal could be brought immediately after the original order or decision. That gives flexibility both ways. It gives a longer maximum but states that one need not wait: one can bang in the notice of appeal straight away if necessary. It has been known for somebody to misidentify premises—honest mistakes can be made. If there were a need for an immediate appeal and everybody was ready for it to be heard quickly, there would be flexibility in that regard. The Minister will understand that we do not seek to damage the Bill. We simply aim to introduce extra flexibility. It is worth putting the reasons on the record.

Bob Ainsworth: Extending the period allowed for appeal would overly lengthen and complicate the process of executing a closure order. It would leave the possibility of an appeal hanging over the process for an excessively long period. The ability to appeal against the use of the power is obviously necessary, but as the power is currently drafted the checks and balances are sufficient to ensure that the decision of the magistrates court is considered and is well evidenced.
 An appeal to the Crown court is a last resort in cases in which those with a connection with the property feel that an inappropriate action has been taken. The 21-day period is sufficient to allow for an appeal against an order and is based on the precedent of similar existing powers such as those to close illegal drinking dens in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 1994. In my view, there is no need for amendment No. 38. Under the clause, an appeal can be brought at any time during the 21-day period. There is no need to wait for 21 days, which was the hon. Gentleman's worry on the other side of the argument. 
 Twenty-one days is in line with other legislation and is sufficient time in which to bring an appeal. I do not see a justification for lengthening the period.

Nick Hawkins: I hear what the Minister says and he has heard what I have said. I do not agree that it would not be helpful to have some flexibility, but I will not detain the Committee with an argument on that small point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Exemption from liability for certain damages

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in
clause 9, page 6, line 37, after 'not', insert 'personally'.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 39, in 
clause 9, page 7, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).

Nick Hawkins: There are a couple of points that we want to touch on. We felt that it might be helpful to add the word ''personally'' through amendment No. 38. We will return to liability in part 3, which we will debate later this week, and I alert the Minister in advance to the debates we might have about who might be liable under part 3.
 It is a small point but, having done quite a lot of civil law in addition to criminal law, I know that stating in the Bill that the officers concerned cannot not be made personally liable might sometimes be helpful. A few moments ago, the Minister referred to situations in which proceedings might be brought against senior officers. The Bill uses the generic phrase ''a constable'', which could apply to anybody at any police rank, from police constable up to chief constable, but it might be helpful to add that phrase and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. 
 Amendment No. 39 would delete subsection (3)(b). We are aware that the Government have had all sorts of problems that were not anticipated before the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed. There have been many debates between my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the Home Secretary about whether in other areas of the law the Government might be wise to derogate from the European convention on human rights and then reaccede to the human rights legislation with reservations. 
 It is absolutely clear is that the human rights legislation that the Government have introduced has caused a substantial number of extra cases to be brought to court and a substantial extra cost to the taxpayer. Whatever one feels about looking after human rights, a lot of people in my constituency—and, I am sure, in constituencies up and down the country—are seeing the law of unintended consequences in operations, whereby, for example, claims for damages are being brought by burglars against house owners. Most people wonder whether the Government have completely taken leave of their senses in opening up such a huge extra area of litigation and cost. 
 I simply want to probe whether the Government are referring yet again to awards of damages under the Human Rights Act. It seemed to us that the clause was another example of the Government finding that in introducing every bit of legislation, they have to contemplate further costs of litigation and further awards of damages, which are going to cost the taxpayer money. It was worth getting that on the record because of the reference in question. At this stage, the amendment is only a probing one. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say on those two slightly different, serious points.

Annette Brooke: I shall be brief. To be consistent with the Liberal Democrat stance, I place on record that we are greatly concerned that any legislation should be
 compatible with human rights, and I cannot envisage us supporting arguments that go against that. Our concern is about exempting police constables from liability. What about the authorised people that we have been talking about? They are not mentioned. Will they be liable for any damages that they might cause to property when they enter it?

Bob Ainsworth: The clause is designed to ensure that police officers and police forces are not liable for damages arising from the exercise of their powers under this part of the Bill. The clause is intended to prevent malicious attempts to seek redress for the actions of the police from criminals who might have been involved with the supply of drugs. However, if a police officer fails to act within the boundaries of the Human Rights Act or acts in bad faith, it is entirely right that that matter should be addressed by the courts; I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is not suggesting that that ought not to be so.
 There is no need to amend the clause with regard to the personal liability of the constable. Constables do not have any other form of liability. Under section 88 of the Police Act 1996, chief officers are already liable for the unlawful conduct of constables under their control. Subsection (1) of clause 9 deals with the constable's potential liability and subsection (2) with the chief officer's. 
 On the point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, as we are exempting police officers and police forces from malicious attempts to seek redress, that should also apply to those who have been authorised to conduct themselves in this way, along with the chief constable. They would be covered by the same exemption.

Nick Hawkins: I understand what the Minister has to say. We are obviously not going to agree about the Human Rights Act, but it was a useful debate on personal liability. I do not want to detain the Committee longer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Compensation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I have a couple of brief points and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire may wish to speak as well. We were concerned about taxpayers' money being used, and subsection (4), which relates to compensation from central funds, concerned us, but I could not think of an easy and straightforward way of amending the clause. I simply wanted to raise the issue, which is why it is appropriate to say a few words about it in the stand part debate. There will be great concern if a person allows their premises to be misused, but the decision is taken not to implement a closure order owing to a bizarre verdict in the courts, and the person against whom the closure order has been sought then claims for damages and receives money from the
 taxpayer. My constituents would not be happy if that were to happen. I therefore thought that it was important to put those concerns on the record, and to see what the Minister has in mind.
 One recognises, of course, that an action may have been completely misconceived—the wrong premises may have been chosen, for example. I touched on the fact that to err is human; someone might make a bureaucratic error and write down the wrong address. In such circumstances, in which the people who own the premises have done nothing wrong, they will want some redress if their doors have been broken in. I am, however, worried that a situation might arise in which someone who is not, as lawyers say, coming to equity with clean hands, receives damages from the taxpayer under the provisions of the Bill. I therefore think it important to place that concern on the record at this stage, because the clause as drafted might attract quite a lot of attention when the Bill reaches another place. 
 The Minister and I are familiar with the sort of points that are picked up by the very senior lawyers—Law Lords and the like—who have experience of dealing with such matters over many years. I thought that if we did not have a brief stand part debate on the clause, their lordships might think that we had completely ignored the difficult issues that compensation from taxpayers' money raises. I hope that the Minister will be able to address some of those issues and that he will take them seriously. We are not trying to eliminate the opportunity for redress to be made to the innocent property owner who has been wronged, but we are concerned about the inappropriate use of taxpayers' money.

Matthew Green: I am glad that we have had the stand part debate, because while the hon. Gentleman was speaking, a further concern occurred to me. Subsection (4)(b) states that the court may order the payment of compensation
''if the person is the owner or occupier of the premises, that he took reasonable steps to prevent the use.''
 What is a reasonable step? A reasonable step taken by a social landlord or someone who owns 50 or 100 properties might be entirely different from a reasonable step taken by a person who owns one property, decides that they want to travel around the world for six months, finds a tenant and signs a tenancy agreement, goes off round the world, and comes back to find that that tenant was running a crack house. The argument could be made that because that person went off round the world, they did not take any reasonable steps to prevent that happening. The definition of reasonable steps differs depending on who the person is. 
 I would like reassurance from the Minister that the Government will issue clarification—I see that he is nodding, so that is welcome. We need clarification of what constitutes the reasonable steps that a landlord—including one person renting out their house as well as a professional landlord—should take. It is difficult to know what steps one could take when renting out one's house to prevent someone selling drugs from it.

James Paice: My point follows that made by the hon. Member for Ludlow and relates to subsection (4)(a) and (b). I intended to expand on the point about ''reasonable steps''. However, I also want to raise an issue related to subsection (4)(a), which states
''that the person had no connection with the use of the premises as mentioned in section 1(1).''
 Will the Minister tell me exactly what is meant by 
''had no connection with the use of the premises''?
 Can he confirm that it does not mean simply being the owner and the lessor of the property? It could be argued that if someone let a property, that person automatically has a connection with the use of the premises, particularly if they or their agent is acting as the letting manager of that property. 
 If someone has a contract with a letting agent who manages the lease of the contract, does that person have a connection with the use of the premises? It would be helpful if the Minister expanded on that. We have repeatedly discussed in Committee how a Minister's explanation of legislation can be used in future. It would help those who will have to implement the legislation and may be affected by it to know a little more about what the Government mean by subsection (4)(a) and (b). 
 If a landlord or property owner lets one or two houses by using the services of a letting agent, how can they take the reasonable steps to which the hon. Member for Ludlow refers? If that property is then used for something that makes it subject to the closure notice in clause 1(1), could their ownership and lease of it and the fact that the letting agent is in the vicinity be construed as their having any connection with the use of the premises, or does connection with the use mean that they are smoking or selling the drugs themselves? I suspect that that is what the Minister means and the Government intend, but like the Minister I am not a lawyer. I am not clear whether that is what the clause says, and it would be helpful to have an explanation, which could be used in future, of what the Minister is trying to achieve.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire points that neither he nor I is a lawyer. We want to the get the legislation right and do not want to pay compensation inappropriately. Equally, however, we do not want to introduce draconian measures that can be used in inappropriate circumstances without compensation being paid and so discourage people from getting into the business of letting their properties. We must encourage people to expand the rented sector where appropriate.
 The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked me to clarify what the clause means. I believe, and am advised, that it means precisely what it says, namely that 
''On an application under this section the court may order the payment of compensation out of central funds if it is satisfied . . . that the person had no connection with the use of the premises as mentioned in section 1(1)''.
 Of course, 
''the use of the premises as mentioned in section 1(1)''
 relates to clause 1(1)(a) and 
''the unlawful use or supply of a Class A controlled drug'',
 and to clause 1(1)(b) and 
''the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public.''
 The answer to the question whether we should, in any circumstances, compensate someone with a connection with the use that created the nuisance, is no. The answer should also be no if the person had any connection with the supply of class A drugs. Paragraph (a) is designed to prevent compensation in circumstances where the person has a connection with misuse, causing a nuisance or supplying drugs.

James Paice: I am grateful for what the Minister has just said. I was not advocating that someone who had been involved in the supply or use of drugs should be eligible for compensation. My concern is the other way round: that someone should be able to apply for compensation and should not be debarred because ownership and leasing of the property could be construed as connection with use. Is the Minister confirming that ownership of the property is irrelevant to its use? In other words, is he confirming that unless the owner has been complicit in the use, simple ownership cannot be construed as any form of responsibility for the use?

Bob Ainsworth: I know what the hon. Gentleman is reaching for and if I have not already made it clear, connection with the use is connection with the use; ownership is a separate matter. Compensation should not be considered if the person concerned is connected with the use—in effect, the misuse—of the property. Mere ownership of the property does not connect him with the misuse of it. Clause 1(1), as I read it, ensures that a person who is connected with that use or misuse cannot be considered for compensation. That does not debar the owner but anyone who has been connected with the activities taking place on the premises so that they are not inappropriately considered for compensation.
 Clause 10 relates to compensation claims for those who incur financial loss, such as direct loss of income, in consequence of a closure notice or order. An owner may have taken all possible steps to control the behaviour but been unsuccessful, and for those cases we have given the courts discretion to award compensation for loss of rental income or damage caused during the closure period. 
 Hon. Members ask what constitutes reasonable steps and it is our intention to issue guidance. That guidance will be based on good housing management practice. Is someone clears off abroad without leaving an agent in control of the use of their premises, that will not be an excuse because it is not in line with the guidance and good management practice, so they will not be eligible for compensation. We need to clarify that in guidance. 
 Liberal Democrat Members and Conservative Members—I am not sure whether their emphasis is different—have properly alighted on the words 
''that he took reasonable steps to prevent the use''
 and the guidance should clarify that. I am as concerned as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to ensure that we do not inappropriately pay out taxpayers' money. Whether the words should be ''reasonable steps'' or ''all reasonable steps'' will be considered in conjunction with the guidance to pin the matter down. I give a commitment to do that and to try to ensure that an avenue is open for people who have been treated inappropriately but that it is not open to people to claim compensation inappropriately from taxpayers.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. Before he finishes, I hope that he will deal with the specific issue that I raised. We have all seen situations in which someone who is not in any sense law abiding benefits from a bizarre verdict of the court and then immediately tries to slap in a claim for compensation. The Minister's comments were reasonable, but I hope that he will address that specific issue.

Bob Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman believes that he raised anything in Committee today that I have not tried to explore elsewhere to ensure that compensation is paid only in appropriate circumstances, he is wrong. I can assure him that those concerns have been kicked around.
 Subsection 4(d) states: 
''having regard to all the circumstances it is appropriate to order payment for compensation in respect of loss''.
 That should cover the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred in which it is clear that people may have met the strict guidelines but, because a freakish situation arises, it is inappropriate to pay compensation. That should be covered by paragraph (d) and we must ensure that that is adequate. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Interpretation

Amendment made: No. 190, in 
clause 11, page 7, line 41, leave out subsection (1) and insert— 
 '(1) References to a controlled drug and (however expressed) to the production or supply of a controlled drug must be construed in accordance with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Cran. I am slightly puzzled because my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I did not see amendment No. 190 on the selection list. We may have been in error, but it does not appear to be on our selection list.

James Cran: If the hon. Gentleman looks, he will find it.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in
clause 11, page 8, line 28, leave out 'of the fee simple'.
 My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has now spotted amendment No. 190 under clause 1, so the mystery is solved. 
 It may be my cynical mind, but whenever I see a Government Bill that is printed in one typeface apart from one part of one page, which is in a completely different typeface and involves specific legal language with which I am familiar, it occurs to me that it might be what people in the film industry call a last-minute cut-and-paste job. I wonder whether one of the Home Office draftsmen suddenly realised that there may be a technicality relating to land law and rushed off to the relevant bit of the Treasury Solicitor's Department for a specific definition of ownership. Other than those of us who had to fight through exams on land law as part of our legal qualifications, one does not often see phrases such as 
''other than a mortgagee not in possession, who is for the time being entitled to dispose of the fee simple of the premises''.
 I would be fascinated to hear the Minister describe his understanding of fee simple, but at this time of night it would be unfair on him, hard though I know he works. I want just to know whether he has a simple explanation for it.

Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman will notice that the passage in question is not in fact in a different typeface, but in a different type size.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's correction. I should have said that it is a different type size; nevertheless, it looks different and immediately jumps off the page. It was obviously included at a different time and I am interested in what the Minister has to say about it.
 While I am on my feet, Mr. Cran, I would like to query a matter of order. We were disappointed that our proposed new clause 1 was not selected for debate, because we hoped that this Bill was an appropriate vehicle for our proposals on proceedings against drugged drivers, which are contained in a measure currently being debated in another place and due to come to this House in July. Will you advise me at some point before we finish tonight about whether its non-selection means that it could still be referred to on Report? I wanted to raise that before we ran out of time on this part of the Bill.

James Cran: We shall separate the two issues.

Bob Ainsworth: I have found a good use for the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I must admit that not only am I not an expert on land law, but I had not noticed the different size of print. His devious mind has alighted on something that may be right.
 The amendment has highlighted the difficult question of the owner of a property. The correct identification of the ownership of the property is a concern and legal definitions can appear complicated. As currently drafted, the subsection identifies the freeholder of the premises as the owner, and it may be desirable also to include the leaseholder in cases in which property is subject to a relatively long lease. 
 We shall give the issue further consideration with a view to introducing an amendment on Report if necessary. I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing to the Committee's attention a potential difficulty that must be addressed. I ask him to withdraw the amendment so that we can do that.

Nick Hawkins: I am glad that the Minister has found my raising the issue helpful, and given that he has continued to examine what I acknowledge are difficult issues, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Vernon Coaker: Clause 11 brings us to the end of the first part on an important new power, of which we have listed the different interpretations. I know that it is a concern to the Minister and his colleagues to ensure that all the bodies that have the new power available to them know that it is available. We have found that although we pass powers in this place, many people have no idea about them. If we are passing the powers, we must ensure that such people know about them so that they can be used.

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right. Simplicity is always a good thing, but some of our legislation has to be complicated. It grows up over time and is not used to the extent that it should be. We often find ourselves passing new laws when there is potentially an answer or redress in existing law, so communicating the new powers will be important. We will have to join in that communication at every level.
 Concerns about certain aspects of the power have been addressed in Committee today, and there is broad agreement that it is needed. That agreement should help us in hammering home the necessity of using the powers whenever appropriate. We will have to examine what we do as a Government, both in the Home Office and in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to communicate the need to use the powers. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will do so. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

James Cran: On the matter of order, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will know that such decisions are made by the Speaker and his advisers. I cannot say much more about that, except that perhaps that the hon. Gentleman should keep close to the Clerk after the sitting, as he might be able to help him more than I can at this stage.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Seven o'clock till Thursday 8 May at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.